Peter is involved in
international human rights issues because he still believes that we can
achieve a
world governed by the rule of law, where international human rights
violations can be prosecuted anywhere in the world. His book, Human
Rights and the Alien Tort
Statute: Law History and Analysis, was published by the American
Bar
Association in 2009.

The horrors of World War II created a consensus among the nations of
the world that the relationship between a government and its citizens
is a matter of international concern, and that organizations such as
the
United Nations were needed to
provide a permanent venue to address international problems and
concerns without resorting to war. The Holocaust
and other atrocities committed by supposedly "civilized" counties
demonstrated that genocide and crimes against humanity affected the
entire world. The unprecedented number of casualties from war
crimes, including the bombing of civilian populations, were also
plainly a matter of international concern. It
is no longer acceptable for brutal and repressive
governments to murder their own citizens, torture them, or take other
actions that are deemed to violate an international consensus of
minimum acceptable standards of conduct. International law, as
embedded in the International Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and
Political
Rights, now addresses the relationship between a country and its
citizens.

In 1980, in the case of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, a
Paraguayan police captain was found liable for torturing and killing
the 17-year-old son of a political opponent of dictator
Alfredo Stroessner. Judge Irving Kaufman famously
declared that "the torturer has
become like a pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis,
an enemy of all mankind." The court established three important
principles:

1. United States courts have jurisdiction
under an
obscure 18th century statute, the Alien Tort Statute, to adjudicate
violations of international law, even though neither of the parties are
United States citizens.

2. International law is continually
changing. A court must apply contemporary international law to
claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute.

3. Customary international law
prohibits a government from torturing its own citizens.

In 2004,
the Supreme Court upheld the basic holdings of Filartiga in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.
It is now clear that human rights cases alleging a violation of
international law can be prosecuted
in United States courts. The nations of the world will continue
to reach consensus on norms of internationally accepted conduct and
these norms can be enforced in United States courts.

Since Filartiga,
there have been hundreds of
cases brought in United
States courts, alleging violations of international law. Cases
under the Alien Tort Statute have alleged violations of international
human rights on every inhabited continent, and for a wide range of
activities: Nazi-era atrocities, ethnic cleansing and genocide,
suppression of religious groups, war crimes committed with the approval
of governments, terrorism, and torture and extrajudicial killing by the
agents of brutal dictatorship. In addition, there is a growing
consensus that other types
of misconduct by governmental actors, such as state sponsored
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and possibly even
religion, may also violate international law. Similarly,
expropriation of property by governmental actors without compensation,
forced exile, and involuntary medical experimentation have also been
found to violate international law.

Cases brought against government actors are frequently barred by
immunity doctrines. For example, a case brought against Robert
Mugabe, the virtual dictator of Zimbabwe, was dismissed because, as a
sitting head of state, he was entitled to a common law immunity from
civil litigation. Israeli governmental officials have been found
to be immune for alleged war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza because the
alleged actions were part of official governmental policies.
Similarly, U.S. officials, including Henry Kissinger, have been
entitled to immunity for alleged violations of international law in
Chile and Latin America.

In a 1995 case, Kadic v. Karadzic, the
Second Circuit held that Radovan Karadzic, the self-styled President of
the Republic of Serbia, could be sued as an individual for his
involvement in the atrocities in Bosnia even though he was not acting
as a governmental official. This case was very important because
it established the principle that private individuals and, by
implication, other non-governmental actors such as corporations, could
be
found liable for violating international law. Kadic opened the
door to lawsuits against multinational corporations for
committing human rights abuses and for aiding and
abetting such abuses by governments.

Kadic enabled
a new wave of
cases under the Alien Tort Statute, particularly against oil and mining
companies for assisting brutal governmental
repression. In the most successful case, Unocal paid a
settlement,
reportedly in the amount of $30 million, for its actions in
constructing a pipeline through Myanmar, because the Myanmar military
committed gross human rights violations. In South African Apartheid Litigation,
a case that is being actively litigated in
the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs are seeking to
hold a
group of multinational
corporations liable for aiding and abetting the apartheid policies of
the former Union of South
Africa.

Litigation involving international human rights frequently and
necessarily involves political questions. Cases may challenge the
policies and politics of controversial regimes, and oppose the
activities of private
organizations, including multinational corporations, that do business
in those countries. Oil and mining companies may be only
concerned with turning a profit, but
when they ally with a repressive government, they will necessarily be
implicated in the politics of the country. The tension between
alleged human rights abuses and political questions is perhaps clearest
in the Middle East,
where Arab states, Palestinian organizations and the State of Israel
have all been accused of violating international law.
Furthermore, many
countries that were supported by the United States, such as the
right wing governments in South and Central America during the 1970s
and 1980s, have
also been accused of international law violations. Human rights
cases involving the governments of countries such as Colombia today or
Chile under the Pinochet regime, may impact United States policies.

The international "rule of law" means that liability
for human rights violations should be determined by generally
recognized norms of law with the relevant facts determined by
evidentary proceedings, not on the bases of political allegiances or
military force. For example, it should be an absolute that the
killing
of unarmed civilians as part of an effort to terrorize the population
violates international law, regardless of whether it is done by a
suicide bomber or whether it is done by a bombing raid by an organized
air force. Government expropriation of property for ethnic
cleansing campaigns should never be tolerated. Torture of
prisoners is also clearly proscribed, whether performed
by rogue governments, rebel militia, or by the United States at Guantanamo or
Abu Gharib.

Other international law norms are also emerging. Government
sponsored discrimination on the basis of race or gender, which until
very recently was generally accepted by many governments, now arguably
violates international law. Although United States courts have
held that international
law, as of 2011, does not recognize a right to a clean and safe
environment, it is
to be hoped that international law will evolve and will recognize a
right to a healthy environment in the future.

Peter believes that establishing universal standards of
international law and
the mechanisms to enforce these standards will provide the best hope
for world peace, for a world
committed to justice, human rights and dignity, and for a fair
opportunity for every person to develop their full potential as human
beings. International
law should not only proscribe governments from torturing and killing
its own citizens;
it should also prohibit discrimination on the basis of race,
nationality, gender or religion, and should be expanded to guarantee
every human being certain rights, including the right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. He believes that international
institutions, such as the International Criminal Court, and other
evolving judicial fora should be strengthened, their jurisdiction
widened, and that they should be given broader latitude to enforce
their decisions.

As a United States lawyer, Peter would like to see courts in the United
States exercise their jurisdiction over international law claims and
provide a forum for cases brought to redress atrocities committed in
violation of
international law anywhere in the world. United States courts, by
accepting this role, will best fulfill
the noble principles upon which the United States was originally
founded more than two centuries ago. The April 2013 decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Kiobel
v. Royal Dutch Petroleum sharply limits the possibility of
using the Alien Tort State as a jurisdictional basis for violations of
international law, but Peter believes that it is essential that
advocates for human rights develop other and new legal strategies to
make United States courts address violations of international
law.